Female-friendly armour? Iron thong not good. Grokina no like! (I suppose.)
(A bit long winded)
The exterior of armour would probably be designed mostly according to the threats it needs to fend off. Padding would protect the wearer from the armour itself, and regular armour would probably be more friendly to the female body than metal swimwear.

I perceive the metal bikini as a sexy attire symbolic of its function (armour) and its wearer's role (warrior).

Often, though, the extravagant man-containers (big metal suits) have a similar place, yet reveal less skin (therefore looking more protective).

In those cases, the discrepancy might have more to do with the differences in perceived "sexiness". (The man isn't better covered because the artist thought he should have more armour, but because the artist doesn't see his <or her> male hero running around in skin-baring attires to begin with.)

That, of course, could be a discussion of its own (I start game, be man in hotpants with supersized frontal bulge, feel uncomfortable; I start game, be woman in bikini, not so bad; I start game, be man in casual clothes, feel alright). But I don't know enough about women or games to say if female sexuality is generally misrepresented. There's often some need to stylize a character anyway.
So I'd be ok with chainmail bikinis if they represented the wearer's style/mode of clothing, provided a context where armours generally represent a wearer's style. Such a game might feature men and women in other unrealistic armours as well, unless it portrays all women (or even men) as ardent bikini-wearers.

There could also be "boob plates" in more realistic games. These would be held or used by idiots, actors/liveroleplayers and others who might prefer appearance over function.

In short: Save the boob plate for the right occasion.

<Clarification: By "I'd be ok" I mean "It wouldn't strike me as too odd", as I'm otherwise mostly ok with stuff to begin with.>

Last edited by Sinister; 05/08/13 07:23 PM. Reason: Clarification